Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal from the Merit System Protection Board and one Rule 36 judgment. This morning, the court released three precedential opinions, two nonprecedential opinions, one nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal, and two Rule 36 judgments. Two of the precedential opinions came in cases appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. The third addressed a petition for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Notably, while Judge Reyna concurred in the panel’s decision to affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board’s dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal, he wrote separately to express his view that the governing law represented an “unjust principle.” The two nonprecedential opinions come in patent cases decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments and dismissals.
Global K9 Protection Group, LLC v. United States (Precedential)
Appellant K2 Solutions, Inc. (“K2”) appeals from a Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) decision denying its motion to intervene in a bid-protest case.
The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) awarded a contract to K2 to provide canine explosive-detection services for screening air cargo. On February 13, 2023, Global K9 Protection Group (“Global K9”) filed a bid-protest complaint at the Claims Court, alleging that the USPS arbitrarily and irrationally evaluated Global K9’s bid and made a flawed best-value decision. The complaint was filed under seal, but Global K9 provided K2 with pre-filing notice of the complaint and filed a redacted version of the complaint on the public docket, both of which were required under the Claims Court’s rules. R. Ct. Fed. Cl. app. C §§ 2(d), 6(b). K2 elected not to intervene.
Several months later, on July 7, 2023, Global K9 filed an amended complaint under seal, adding new allegations that K2 materially misrepresented its capabilities to win its contract award. Contrary to the requirements of the protective order and the Claims Court rules, Global K9 did not file a redacted public version on the public docket. Based on the alleged misrepresentation, on December 27, 2023, Global K9 secured judgment on the administrative record that included an injunction requiring the USPS to disqualify K2 from performing the contract.
K2 learned of the injunction on December 28, 2023, and moved to intervene on January 10, 2024. Shortly thereafter, and before the Claims Court ruled on intervention, the USPS terminated K2’s contract for default, citing alleged ongoing performance deficiencies and the Claims Court’s findings in the bid-protest proceeding. With K2’s contract already terminated, the Claims Court concluded that intervention was moot, and, in the alternative, untimely.
We conclude that the case is not moot. With regard to timeliness, the failure of Global K9 to publicly file redacted versions of sealed documents was contrary to the rules of the Claims Court and the right of public access to court filings. Nonetheless, we agree with the Claims Court that K2’s motion to intervene was untimely, and we affirm.
Dillon Trust Co. v. United States (Precedential)
The Dillon Trust Company LLC, on behalf of a group of trusts for the Dillon family, appeals the decision of the Court of Federal Claims holding the Dillon trusts liable as transferees for the unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest of Humboldt Shelby Holding Corporation. The Dillon Trust Company also appeals the Court of Federal Claims’ summary judgment denying the Dillon Trust Company’s illegal exaction claim as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ decisions.
Tavakkol v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Precedential)
Mr. Saeed Tavakkol petitions for review of the dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Because we determine Mr. Tavakkol did not non-frivolously allege that his voluntary resignation from the United States Postal Service was the result of duress, coercion, or misinformation provided by the agency, we affirm the Board’s dismissal of Mr. Tavakkol’s appeal.
Reyna, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Tavakkol failed to non-frivolously allege his resignation was the result of coercion by USPS. But I take issue with the notion that, because Mr. Tavakkol had a pending EEOC complaint at the time of his resignation, that necessarily means he had a “realistic alternative” to resignation. Majority Opinion (“Op.”) 13–14. Requiring an employee, while still employed, to see an administrative challenge (here, an EEOC complaint) to the agency’s conduct through to completion before the employee can bring a claim for involuntary resignation is an unjust principle.
Spero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Yechezkal Evan Spero appeals a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determining claims 1–8, 10–19, 21–30, and 32–33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,208,029 are unpatentable. Because we affirm the Board’s decision determining all claims of the ’029 patent are unpatentable in Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2025-1306 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2026), we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Spero v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Yechezkal Evan Spero appeals final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determining claims 1–28, 30–68, and 70 of U.S. Patent No. 10,894,503 are unpatentable. Because we affirm the Board’s decisions determining the appealed claims of the ’503 patent are unpatentable in Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2025- 1470 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2026), and Spero otherwise failed to appeal the remaining claims the Board determined are unpatentable, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Rule 36 Judgments
- Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
- Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
- Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc.